Power Punters to Pay Double for Wind Power “FAILS” – REAL Power Generators Paid to Cover Wind Power Fraud

The hackneyed myth that wind power “powers” millions of homes with wonderful “free” wind energy is taking a beating around the globe (see our posts here and here).

The idea that a wholly weather dependent power generation source can ever be – as is touted endlessly by the wind industry and its parasites – an “alternative” to conventional generation is, of course, patent nonsense.

If there wasn’t already a complete power generation system built around on-demand sources, such as gas, coal, nuclear or hydro – then a country trying to run on wind power would – unless it was keen to revisit (or remain in) the stone age – inevitably need to build one (see our post here). So far, so insanely costly, and utterly pointless.

At STT the term “powering” means exactly what it says: that when someone – at any time of the day or night – in any and all of the thousands of homes claimed to be “powered” by wind power – flicks the switch the lights go on or the kettle starts boiling.

The wind industry never qualifies its we’re “powering thousands of homes” mantra by saying what it really means: that wind power might be throwing a little illumination or sparking up the kettle in those homes every now and again – and that the rest of time their owners will be tapping into a system of generation that operates quite happily 24 x 7, rain, hail or shine – without which they’d be eating tins of cold baked beans, while sitting freezing (or boiling) in the dark.

A while back we covered the necessity of having additional capacity from fossil fuel generators to keep the grid “balanced” (ie, functional):

In that post, we pointed to the obvious fact that wind power outfits get a “free-ride” at ALL power consumers’ expense, due to the massive cost of having conventional generators supply power to “balance the grid”: which means ensuring that the “voltage”, “phase” and “frequency” of power within the entire grid is kept relatively stable and constant; within defined tolerances. For a brief outline of the fundamentals of grid balancing – see this link.

In a widely dispersed, distributed power generation network – like Australia’s Eastern Grid – this means having sufficient reserve capacity to increase generation output (and, therefore, input to the grid) on a second by second (or minute by minute) basis to maintain “frequency”. This is done largely with “spinning reserve” held by base-load gas-steam plants (including CCGTs) and coal plants – which can be added to the grid in seconds – and hydro generation, which can be called upon to start generating within minutes (see our post here).

Maintaining “voltage stability” and “phase” is done on a much faster time scale – a few cycles (ie Hz) or less. The extra power needed in this respect is already in the grid: it then becomes a matter of matching positive and negative voltage balances that simultaneously exist within the grid to maintain equilibrium throughout the grid as a whole. This is done – in simple terms – by grid managers “pushing” power around the grid using transformers, switching gear and circuit breakers.

In Australia, supplying the power used to maintain “voltage” and “phase” stability largely comes from hydro power. That power is not “sold” to retail customers, but is simply absorbed by the grid to keep it stable (ie to prevent blackouts, which would otherwise occur). In other words, a substantial volume of the power generated and dispatched to the grid is used up within it and never sees a kettle or a light globe. However, because it is critical to grid stability, generators supplying power for that purpose charge grid operators a premium price for it. The introduction of substantial – but wildly fluctuating – volumes of intermittent wind power has made the task of maintaining grid stability more difficult; and requires an even greater volume of conventional power to do so.

With 3,669 MW of installed (nameplate) wind power capacity connected to the Eastern Grid, the task of grid managers in trying to balance the grid has become a nightmare – the fluctuations in wind power output vary enormously, second by second, minute by minute and hour by hour – and bring with it a serious risk of widespread blackouts (see our post here).

On the opposite side of each and every one of those utterly unpredictable fluctuations in wind power output, there has to be an equal amount of power already within the grid to compensate. If not, the grid collapses. Despite necessitating the provision of a substantial volume of additional power from conventional sources (dispatched to the grid for no other purpose than balancing it) wind power outfits pay nothing towards that cost.

In respect of all of the above – where wind power outfits escape Scot free – power consumers are ultimately lumbered with the entire cost of providing preferential network distribution for wind power – as well as paying for the additional power generated (and essential) to maintain a balanced grid – through high and rising power bills.

The conventional generators, however, are no longer willing to provide the back-up capacity without being fully compensated: keeping high-cost plant ticking over ready for total, routine, but unpredictable wind power output collapses like those that occurred three days running last July:

Struggling coal- and gas-powered generators could need special payments to keep the lights on when wind and solar plants become more important, according to top energy expert Bruce Mountain.

A so-called capacity payment for generators, as well as wholesale energy payments, would encourage them to keep unprofitable plant on standby to switch on at short notice when renewables aren’t available, he said.

Such standby payments are offered in Britain and are being considered in Germany and Denmark, where the share of renewables is big enough to threaten supply when wind and sun are insufficient, said Mr Mountain, director of energy consultancy CME.

Standby capacity payments tend to go to fossil fuel generators because they are more often available. Renewables account for 26 per cent of Germany’s energy supply with a target of 80 per cent by 2050, and a growing share in Britain and Denmark.

Australian generators have sought a similar payment but the market here is oversupplied, with renewables supplying about 10 per cent, and is not yet facing the supply security problems feared in Europe.

“Certainly it’s something that the Australian governments and the energy institutions should be thinking about very carefully,” Mr Mountain said. “Trying to anticipate this and make sure you take account of all policies – the Renewable Energy Target and carbon and all of those – with a good understanding of the market impact is key.”

The RET is tracking for about 27 per cent of electricity demand by 2020, but the federal government is trying to negotiate that down to a “true 20 per cent” of demand.

The RET subsidy – about $35 a megawatt/hour – makes life tougher for fossil fuel generators that are often underbid at profitable times by the low operating costs of wind and solar.

Energy market reform is part of the federal government’s energy white paper process. But Mr Mountain said the government seemed to shy away from “root and branch reform”.

In a mixed market, renewables can corner the market at times of high supply and demand, depressing prices in the NEM for much of the day.

Fossil fuel generators may only get a look in when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing, Mr Mountain said, and more often than not at times of weak demand and low prices.

If that were to happen at a time of high demand, standby generation would be needed to avoid blackouts.

“It’s clear that it’s a step change in market design and industry economics, and that some additional income stream is needed to keep fossil fuel plant on,” Mr Mountain said. “Absent that income stream fossil fuel generators are going to close, and then there’s a risk that the lights are going to go out.”The Australian Financial Review

It’s either this, or we pay twice to keep real generators in the game …

The Energy and Climate Change Committee said the “capacity market” could also lead to higher energy costs and raise carbon emissions.

It said few of the subsidies were given to smart technology which can cut electricity demand.

The government said the scheme “guaranteed energy security at the lowest cost for consumers”.

The so-called capacity market aims to ensure there is enough power generation in the system to meet peak demand.

It provides payments for power plants that would otherwise be closed or mothballed to stay online, as well as helping fund schemes which cut demand when supplies are tight.

‘Higher than necessary’

But the majority of payments, which come from consumer bills, are going towards keeping existing power plants on the system, paying them to stand idle for much of the year, the committee warned.

Of the £1bn of payments committed, 5% is set to go to new gas generation, while 0.4% is going towards schemes to alter demand.

A fifth of the contracts already awarded will go to polluting coal power stations, according to the report.

Analysis, by BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin

MPs are not the only ones puzzled at the government’s apparent determination to push coal policy in opposite directions at once.

A few weeks ago all party leaders committed themselves to getting rid of coal from power generation as part of their climate ambitions.

Yet ministers are paying operators to keep ancient coal-fired power stations limping on in case of the hour of need.

Meanwhile, innovative demand reduction schemes are starved of cash.

Some of these are ingenious additions to the Internet of Things.

One firm has software which calculates when an extra squirt of power is needed on the grid. Its computer then talks to the computer of, say, a farmer with a wind turbine, and tells it to switch the farm to back-up battery until the peak of demand is overcome.

The government may simply find it easier to deal with big existing power firms with known capacity in gas and coal, rather than to trust the more anarchic world of disruptive technologies that increasingly threaten the energy establishment.

Conservative MP Tim Yeo, chairman of the committee, said: “Every consumer in the country is currently subsidising spare electricity generating capacity that may only be used for a few hours each year.

“But smart technology has now made it possible to reduce unnecessary electricity demand at peak times, thereby reducing the number of polluting power stations that need to be switched on.

“This could mean we can reduce the total electricity generating capacity that has to be maintained in future, bringing down costs for consumers while enabling us to reduce consumption of fossil fuels.”

But Mr Yeo said the “promising” technology had been “disadvantaged” in the capacity market auctions, “meaning costs and emissions could be higher than necessary”.

The government held its first capacity market auction last year, which saw power firms secure more than 49GW of electricity generation capacity.

As a result of the “auction”, power generation firms are to receive close to £1bn to ensure their plants stay open and prevent blackouts, which will add £11 to an average household electricity bill.

A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said the government had inherited a “legacy of under-investment in our energy infrastructure”.

He added: “The capacity market auction has guaranteed energy security at the lowest cost for consumers and we’ve done this by ensuring that we get the best out of our existing power stations, unlocking new investment in flexible plant, and putting in place plans to enable the demand side to play a growing role in the market.”BBC

Typical wind-waffle from the BBC’s Ministry of Truth there. And, with his deep and unseemly links to wind power outfits, no surprises for Tim Yeo’s ‘valiant’ defence of the wind industry’s central, endlessly repeated lie; viz., that it’s a serious power generation source, on a par with coal, gas, nuclear and hydro (see our post here).

When hit with the obvious fact that wind power is (and will always be) simply a wholly weather dependent power source, the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers are reduced to talk about “promises” and “new developments” – like “smart grids” – that are said to overcome the reason that wind power was abandoned in the 19th Century.

No, the truth is, that if our political betters are to avoid widespread grid collapses (and the riots that will follow), power punters will be paying conventional generators massive sums to be on standby, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. And that’s a FACT.

But I already paid a bomb to subsidise wind power!?! And now they want MORE??

Reblogged this on JunkScience.com and commented:
The well-known problems with trying to maintain grid reliability with randomly variable “baseloads.” Standby or capacity payments are part of grid reliability for peaking and emergency power needs. Variable supplies increase the amount of standby power needed.